Allahabad High Court
Injamamul @ Injamamul Hasan vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2021
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- BAIL No. - 11486 of 2019 Applicant :- Injamamul @ Injamamul Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Pratap Singh,Devesh Deo Bhatt,Mohd. Shahanshah Newaz Kh,Neeraj Mani Tripathi,Sampurnanand Shukla,Shiv Prakash Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Ms. Rashmi Singh holding brief of SriMohd. Shahanshah Newaz Khan for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The applicant is an accused in case crime No.111 of 2018, under Sections- 302, 120-B and 216 of IPC, police station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged by wife of the deceased stating that her husband and brother-in-law were sitting on their shop when two persons came on motorcycle and opened fire. In the said incident the brother-in-law of the complainant died on the spot. On seeking his brother being shot the husband of the complainant ran away for shelter wherein the two accused persons chased him and also opened fire upon him causing his death. Hearing the gunshot number of persons came there but they were threatened by the two armed persons and under cover fire they ran away and subsequently the first information report was lodged.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that name of accused has cropped up in the statement given by the main accused Ankur Saroj, who has stated that it was the applicant who was making threatening calls from foreign countries and making extortion calls from abroad. Consequently, it is stated that the accused persons were taking shelter in the tent house owned by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the investigation has concluded and in the entire investigation there is no material which has come forth which could link the applicant to the said crime as alleged. It has been stated that neither extortion calls could be traced to the applicant nor it could be brought on record whether he is owner of the tent house which gave shelter to the accused persons. Lastly, it has been stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.9.2019 thereby he has spent more than two years in jail.
5. Learned AGA, on other hand, has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking into gravity of the offence and the role played by the applicant the present bail application deserves to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gave my thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case where the allegations in the present case against the applicant are limited only to make extortion calls from abroad. Number of calls have been mentioned but in none of the statements or material collected by the investigating agency could give any proof as to whether these calls were made by the applicant or otherwise. Even the ownership of the tent house could not be verified and it could not be placed on record whether during investigation evidence has come as to whether the applicant is owner of the said tent house and also considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail for the last two years and that co-accused Abhishek Saroj has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 4.9.2019 passed in bail application No.5362 of 2019 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Let the applicant, Injamamul alias Injamamul Hasan, involved in in case crime No.111 of 2018, under Sections- 302, 120-B and 216 of IPC, police station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she would not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P. C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.
8. It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.)
RKM.